Before you dismiss this discussion as just another religious zealous or theologian trying to make a case for the cause, let me give you a short introduction to who I am and insight to my line of reasoning. Most of my life I, only half-jokingly, defined myself with the statement " Every day I thank god I'm an atheist! " I was a strong advocate on the side of science viewpoint, however, using the same scientific methods my viewpoint has evolved over the years.

In light of current headlines and all of the recent news we see morality has become the biggest topic of the day. Every source of media today has some new story relating to a shocking revelation to scandalous activity in all areas of life to include business, entertainment politics and even religion with no end in sight. The fact of the matter is unless your young and only starting to become aware of the world around you or just have had your head in the sand you know none of this is new.

Time and time again the debate about God is raised between the atheist based belief and faith based belief systems. During these debates two questions generally are brought center stage of the argument platform. First obviously, is there a God or Creator of the universe and second do we really need God anymore. If both sides are completely honest with themselves they would accept the fact the first question of the existence of God still hasn't been answered and is left open for debate. Now we know the second question is a direct result of the mindset that we now have science to explain how the universe works, therefore we no longer need a Creator or higher power for an explanation.

However let's look at the second question under a separate pretense. Do we need a God, Creator or higher power to govern or direct our lives.

As a foundation, what are basic rights or even morality and then the question then is raised who gives these to us.
Throughout history these questions have been addressed even before the first written word. When studied we can see basic, almost instinctual, hierarchy of human rights -- Freedom both physical and of mind or thought, to be treated with dignity and respect, to do no harm to each other, to protect ourselves from harm, and that everyone is as important as the next person in other words equal.
To be a moral or good person it is understood that we follow and respect these rights when we interact in life. No matter what our background or belief system is, I think most people can come to agreement on these ideals.

But now this brings us to who gives us these rights.

One school of thought is we are the top of the chain when it comes to our understanding of intelligence and we ourselves create these concepts as a way to govern and set a level to measure so called fairness and morality between people.
Under this premise any time the collective mind of people begin to change we should be able to adapt a new set of rules called rights and by nature these would promote a harmony with nature.
The challenge to this idea comes about when we use this ideology we lose the very definition of the word rights. Rights as defined cannot be changed or should ever be infringed upon.
By placing ourselves as the giver of rights they are reduced to being only privileges.

The other view being that rights are given to us from a higher intelligence and part of a natural rule of order. This mind set puts these into an area that can't be changed and whenever we move away from following these rules despair and suffering always seems to result.

History appears to show the second ideology to have a great deal of merit.